Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let us get this straight. It is not that easy for someone to prove that they weren't hired for racist reasons? Will any one be silly enough to say this, or put it in writing? NO! In addition the person suing will have to prove that it is part of a pattern, and not just applicable to their individual situation. So they must find others willing to join them. Of course few people sue, unless they feel confident that they will win, or are truly desperate, because no employer is going to hire a person who is suing another employer.
It doesn't matter what can be "proven" in a lawsuit. Often the very threat of a lawsuit is enough. Right after I got married my wife was hired at a local medical clinic that was part of a multi-national chain. Her very first day she was told that there was a problem because the person she was hired to replace had filed a lawsuit alleging race discrimination, with the NAACP backing her. The local manager said it wouldn't be a problem; the person was fired for justifiable and documented cause, not race, plus there were other members of her race still working there.
Then two days later there was a closed-door meeting with bigwigs from corporate, and the next thing we know my wife has been reduced to PRN (on call, less than part-time) and the other girl was back at work. Even though they would have ultimately won the case, paying one employee to do poor work would be far FAR cheaper than the cost of a lawsuit and, more importantly, bad publicity from going against the NAACP. They had clinics in many minority communities and feared a dreaded boycott.
I'm not saying that my wife is better than any minority, just a better employee than this one person who happened to be a member of a minority race. Arguably, my wife was discriminated against because she was white. If my wife had been black the lawsuit would have likely never been filed and she would still be working there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradPiff
Black americans have no real economic social or political power to discriminate against white Americans in any fashion.
There have been multiple very valid examples listed in this thread where minorities had power to discriminate against white people. The most prominent being a minority business owner refusing to hire employees of a certain race, all the way down to a minority father refusing to let his daughter date someone of a certain race.
Also, why do people keep limiting this to a discussion of black Americans can't be racist against white Americans???? Kinda narcissistic to assume that any talk of "minorities" and "racism" involves "black Americans" and "white Americans". What about Black-on-Asian racism? or Hispanic-on-Black? or Korean-on-Japanese?
The original statement was about whether a member of a "minority" race (any non-Caucasian race/ethnic group/color) can be racist against anyone of any race. Not about whether a black person can be racist against a white person.
When, or if, people of color begin chaining, shipping, enslaving, selling, lynching, raping, oppressing, exploiting, shooting, jailing, whipping, maiming, torturing, evangelizing, robbing, stereotyping, bullying, segregating, building highways and thruways to dislocate, experimenting on, discriminating against, prohibiting, murdering, holding back in every imaginable way and HATING WHITE PEOPLE en mass via de jure and de facto racism for HUNDREDS of years, then and only then can calling people of color racists, make sense.
and
*Note to people of color*-It’s interesting how the meaning of “racist” has evolved over a relative short period of time by “whiteness” to include the most marginalized and mistreated people if they dare talk about or attempt to analyze – whiteness/white supremacy/white people. It’s a charge that is meant to silence or derail.
Here's my definition of racist- a white person claiming white supremacy as truth instead of a myth.
Last edited by Mashiara4life; 05-20-2014 at 07:33 AM..
Penalty free? No, however equal crimes can result in unequal punishment. There has never been a single conviction of a hate crime against white, yet I find it difficult to believe that there has never been an instance where a person was attacked simply because he's white. Alternatively affermative action is essentially institutional racism in the other direct by it's very definition. It's intention is to offset other pieces of institutional racism, but it's existance means you can't deny that both races have advantages and disavantages within the system.
The problem is, white people tend to think a crime committed by a non-white person against them is a hate crime. IT rarely is an actual hate crime. Remember, to be classified as a hate crime, you have to specifically seek out and have an aim to do harm to someone due to their "race." If I go and rob a rich white white guy, I am not targeting him because he is white. I am targeting him because he is rich.
Getting a hate crime conviction is very difficult, because you have to prove there are no extenuating circumstances. Simply a crime against someone of another race doesn't make it a hate crime.
There is a perception locally that black on asian robberies are hate crimes. But generally speaking, these things are a quick cash grab. And you may ask, why would someone "target" an older asian man for a robbery. To go with stereotypes here, Asian males tend to be smaller, and older asians only tend to deal in cash. So if you goal is to get an easy score, you might go for that 65 year old chinese guy. Not because you hate chinese people, but because they have cash. In most of those supposed cases, the perpetrators had asian friends, so clearly it wasn't an "I hate asian people" thing.
Also, I don't believe your proclamation about no non-whites have been convicted of hate crimes against whites.
The problem is, white people tend to think a crime committed by a non-white person against them is a hate crime. IT rarely is an actual hate crime. Remember, to be classified as a hate crime, you have to specifically seek out and have an aim to do harm to someone due to their "race." If I go and rob a rich white white guy, I am not targeting him because he is white. I am targeting him because he is rich.
Getting a hate crime conviction is very difficult, because you have to prove there are no extenuating circumstances. Simply a crime against someone of another race doesn't make it a hate crime.
There is a perception locally that black on asian robberies are hate crimes. But generally speaking, these things are a quick cash grab. And you may ask, why would someone "target" an older asian man for a robbery. To go with stereotypes here, Asian males tend to be smaller, and older asians only tend to deal in cash. So if you goal is to get an easy score, you might go for that 65 year old chinese guy. Not because you hate chinese people, but because they have cash. In most of those supposed cases, the perpetrators had asian friends, so clearly it wasn't an "I hate asian people" thing.
Also, I don't believe your proclamation about no non-whites have been convicted of hate crimes against whites.
I'm not above admitting I'm wrong. I looked into the source I first found that on and found it was wrong. Government statistics for a few years this past decade reveal that there were a few hundred over the decade. The first source cherry picked a year, my fault for not researching further.
To say racism only exists in non minority groups is condescending. Racism is a problem with all races from all backgrounds but I feel as if whites are the black sheep, if you will, of the problem in today's world. Other things such as hate crime laws, equal opportunity, and affirmative action have all played into this.
In addition the mass media has a huge impact on what their population should see and believe as racism. Just because a group is a minority and may have a disadvantage doesn't give them a free pass to be racists but not be labeled as such.
When, or if, people of color begin chaining, shipping, enslaving, selling, lynching, raping, oppressing, exploiting, shooting, jailing, whipping, maiming, torturing, evangelizing, robbing, stereotyping, bullying, segregating, building highways and thruways to dislocate, experimenting on, discriminating against, prohibiting, murdering, holding back in every imaginable way and HATING WHITE PEOPLE en mass via de jure and de facto racism for HUNDREDS of years, then and only then can calling people of color racists, make sense.
and
*Note to people of color*-It’s interesting how the meaning of “racist” has evolved over a relative short period of time by “whiteness” to include the most marginalized and mistreated people if they dare talk about or attempt to analyze – whiteness/white supremacy/white people. It’s a charge that is meant to silence or derail.
Here's my definition of racist- a white person claiming white supremacy as truth instead of a myth.
Actually, the definition hasn't changed that much recently, and fortunately the rest of the civilized world does't have to use your definitions which seem to be entirely based on a very narcissistic viewpoint developed from a relatively short period of history. The dictionary definition was quoted in the original post. Also, what makes you think "minority" means "people of color", or as you appear to be implying, "African Americans"? I recall no history of white people "chaining, shipping, enslaving, selling, .... etc. etc. and HATING" all Asians for example. They were definitely chained and shipped (internment camps in the USA during WWII), but weren't enslaved or sold. To me it looks like you are arguing that (say) Asians can't claim a white person is racist because they (as a race) haven't suffered enough?
But let's ignore that side issue and look directly at your argument. I'm reading that no white person can claim that a black person was racist against him until whites have suffered for "HUNDREDS of years". I.e., whites haven't suffered bad or long enough to be able to claim racism.
Hundreds of years? What about MILLENNIA? There are documented cases of people being enslaved because of everything from skin color to religion to country of origin to no reason whatsoever. And yes, blacks most definitely were right in the middle of this. The Moors brought education and enlightenment to the European mainland during their occupation, but they also enslaved some of the lighter-skinned locals. For documentation of that last bit, please open your Bibles to Exodus 1. The Children of Israel (from Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq, probably mostly Caucasian bone structure with golden-brown skin) were imprisoned by the Egyptians (Africans, darker skin, probably of mixed Caucasiod/Negroid race) for about 400 years. Then later imprisoned and eventually displaced by every other conqueror who wandered through the area of varying skin colors, including the Moors (dark-skinned Africans) after the Spanish Expulsion. In more recent history, there are people still alive today who remember the Holocaust. During that time people of the "Jewish Race" (light-skinned people) were enslaved and mass-exterminated by Germans (slightly lighter-skinned people).
[Sidebar: Ancient Egyptians and later the Moors also kept sub-Saharan Africans as slaves. This would give some amount of boost to your argument, except you explicitly are attacking white races as oppressors. The fact that it is dark-skinned peoples keeping other dark-skinned peoples as slaves nullifies the white=bad argument.]
You might argue that Jews are a religion and not a race, but recent genetic studies and older SCOTUS decisions say otherwise. Using any or all of your criteria quoted above, Jews (light skinned people) have suffered far worse and for FAR longer than any dark-skinned people you can come up with. Using your arguments it's possible for a black person whose ancestors owned Jews as slaves to be racist against a light-skinned Jew, which contradicts your conclusion. Also, using your arguments, black people cannot claim racial discrimination against because as a group they haven't suffered as much as Jews.
But fortunately I disagree with your arguments. As I've already stated, just as ebolavirus (hemorragic fever) and rhinovirus (common cold) are both viruses, racism is racism no matter the scale.
Last edited by An Einnseanair; 05-22-2014 at 01:04 PM..
Hundreds of years? What about MILLENNIA? There are documented cases of people being enslaved because of everything from skin color to religion to country of origin to no reason whatsoever. And yes, blacks most definitely were right in the middle of this. The Moors brought education and enlightenment to the European mainland during their occupation, but they also enslaved some of the lighter-skinned locals. For documentation of that last bit, please open your Bibles to Exodus 1. The Children of Israel (from Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq, probably mostly Caucasian bone structure with golden-brown skin) were imprisoned by the Egyptians (Africans, darker skin, probably of mixed Caucasiod/Negroid race) for about 400 years. Then later imprisoned and eventually displaced by every other conqueror who wandered through the area of varying skin colors, including the Moors (dark-skinned Africans) after the Spanish Expulsion. In more recent history, there are people still alive today who remember the Holocaust. During that time people of the "Jewish Race" (light-skinned people) were enslaved and mass-exterminated by Germans (slightly lighter-skinned people).
This actually can prove the point that power + prejudice = racism. The reality is in certain nations (particularly in N./S. America, and the majority of Europe) the people who have unearned privileges are white. In other nations those who have unearned privileges or power aren't white but of a certain ethnicity or religion.
A. Anyone can hold "racial prejudice" -- that is, they can carry positive or negative stereotypes of others based on racial characteristics. For example, a white person thinking all Asians are smart, or all black people are criminals; or a Chinese person thinking Japanese people are untrustworthy; or what-have-you. ANYONE, of any race, can have racial prejudices.
B. People of any race can commit acts of violence, mistreatment, ostracizing, etc., based on their racial prejudices. A black kid can beat up a white kid because he doesn't like white kids. An Indian person can refuse to associate with Asians. Whatever, you get the idea.
C. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires having institutional power. In North/South America and parts of Europe (don't know about other nations), white people have the institutional power. In large part they head the corporations; make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; they have the money; they make the decisions. In short, white people control the systems that matter. "White" is presented as normal, the default. Because they have institutional power, when they think differently about people based on their race or act on racial prejudices, they are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power.
D. People of color can be prejudiced, but they cannot be racist, because they don't have the institutional power. (However, some people refer to intra-PoC prejudice as "lateral racism". You may also hear the term "colorism", which refers to lighter-skinned PoC being prejudiced toward darker-skinned PoC.) However, that situation can be different in other countries; for example, a Japanese person in Japan can be racist against others, because the Japanese have the institutional power there. But in North America, Japanese people can't be racist because they don't hold the institutional power.
E. If you're in an area of your city/state/province that is predominantly populated by PoC and, as a white person, you get harassed because of your skin color, it's still not racism, even though you're in a PoC-dominated area. The fact is, even though they're the majority population in that area, they still lack the institutional power. They don't have their own special PoC-dominated police force for that area. They don't have their own special PoC-dominated courts in that area. The state/province and national media are still not dominated by PoC. Even though they have a large population in that particular area, they still lack the institutional power overall. B/c of this crimes committed towards white may be handled differently. A white child gone missing gets national media attention as opposed to a black child. A white woman gets beaten to death by her boyfriend get huge media coverage as opposed to the black woman who bared the same atrocity. (yardly love case).
What must be done is to recognize what has been done to people by our ancestors. We have to recognize that certain people in certain nations (White people in N./S. America and parts of Europe) are awarded with unearned privileges. Even though bigotry and racism are of the same nature, racism, having the leverage of power, does more damage. We must recognize that damage. By using the word racism to describe the prejudice minorities experience does exactly that. By using the word racism to encompass the prejudice that whites and minorities experience doesn't.
To add on to my last post: When racism, sexism, and other oppressions are not readily affecting certain members of our society then we can see all forms of prejudice as equal.
This should be the basis of everyone's reasoning when thinking about social issues such as race, gender, sexual orientation etc. Comparing being mocked or discriminated against by a black person now and then to being considered as lesser and being scrutinised more because of your race and having less opportunities every day of your life is actually insulting to people who face these issues. Being called a cracker once and being hurt about it is NOT equal to being more likely to be beaten or arrested because you're black. The reason why PoC have it harder than white people is because they are oppressed by an entire system. White people just aren't, period. This is the difference between colour-based discrimination and racism; they are NOT the same thing, and pretending that they are is refusing to acknowledge how real and severe this issue is.
Yes, white people are excluded from the experience of racism. That's a wonderful thing for THEM, so I have no idea why that hurts other white people so much. As a white person I feel so lucky to not live in a society that is against me due to my skin color, why would I want to say my challenges are as difficult as theirs in relation to my skin color when they're just not?
Actually, I would say I have had just about the same amount of experiences with non-whites as I do with them. I grew in a predominately low income black neighborhood. When my family moved during high school I went to a predominately upper middle class white neighborhood. During college I moved into a predominately black neighborhood of the city. I also bought a house in a predominately Hispanic neighborhood, which I rent out to a Hispanic family. If my friends and I would come together for dinner it would look like the United nations conversing over pizza and beer. Out of all of my closest and dear friends only one of them is white. In fact 3 of my best friends are Poc. One white mexican-american and another Pakistani, and the other is half black and white. My older sister is also married to a black man and they have 3 bi-racial children together. I can see how that can make me a little bias but no more than anyone else here.
With all of my experiences with Poc, inevitably, I have also experienced prejudice b/c I am white. I also understand how it must feel like to experience prejudice and/or racism and not have it recognized as that. Furthermore to have it categorized as something less. And how that lack of recognition may make a white individual feel excluded. I have had a black person straight up tell me that they do not like white people. That is really a reflection of their own problems than mine. But it cannot possibly be equal to the racism that black people endure. Even in a similar scenario. If I were to be called cracker by a PoC so what. Most white don't care about that. Of course, white people think that if I don't care about being called a cracker than why should black ppl care about the n word. Why do they make such a big deal about it. If I (a white person) call a black person the N word they would get horrible offended and justifiably so. There are 264 years of legalized slaverly attached to that word along with another 100 years or of separate but equals laws. The N-word holds much more weight than cracker does. It is unjust and disingenuous to ask any minority to water down their racist experiences.
I will be the first to admit that I have had my own prejudices towards blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. I am not proud of it but I recognize that I have. I am more conscious of my thoughts and I ask my self if it is justified and most importantly ask if I should act on them.
kbf2324,
Thank you for your eloquent reply. And thank you for clarifying your argument as being limited by location. Instead of a blanket statement that minorities (or as most people are arguing, black people) cannot be racist ever or anywhere, I understand that you are at least limiting your argument to the United States and other white-dominated countries. By stating that people of Japanese heritage (a minority in the USA) can be racist in Japan, I'm assuming you would agree that a person of African heritage can be racist against "whites" or any other non-African race in an African country.
I won't copy your entire post, but to me it boils down to two issues: Scale and Semantics.
Scale: Like the others here who are arguing that minorities cannot be racist, you hold the position that in order for a person to be racist they must be able to tap into a Nation-level institutional power structure. You are ignoring the cases where someone can use a local institutional power structure as a basic for discrimination.
Semantics: In order to further your stance on scale, you are attempting to redefine racism by completely eliminating the first definition (see first post, or your nearest dictionary) and limiting the second definition to only cover the most egregious cases. In it's place you are substituting other words to carry lesser cases, specifically, racial prejudice and lateral racism. Another term that is commonly used is reverse racism, which implies that it is somehow different than standard racism.
Let's look at a hypothetical scenario. Let's say person A owns a chain of stores and believes that all people of race B are liars and thieves and that they smell funny. He instructs his employees to follow and carefully watch every person of Race B who comes into his stores. He makes derogatory remarks about race B to his friends. He refuses to hire people of race B as employees. He cheats people of race B by intentionally overcharging or handing back the wrong amount of change. He has a friend high up in the local police force, has another couple of friends on the city council, is friends with his state Representative, and even has several friends high up in the local media. At any time he can call his powerful friends to bring down the weight of local government and media onto anyone of other races who oppose him.
Does person A qualify as a racist? I say he is. He meets both definitions of racism in the first post, and he even if you limit racism to the second definition he has an institutional power structure he can tap into. But under your re-definition you can't answer because you still don't have enough information. Using your definition, you would need to know the specific races as well as which country the people are in to establish which nation-level institutional power structure is in control.
Assuming this is in the USA, and using your definition, if person A is white and race B is black then person A is obviously racist. But if person A is black in a black-majority area (with a black police chief, black members of the city council, black state Representative for his local area, and black writers and editors for the local media... and yes, there are plenty of places in the USA where this situation exists) you are arguing that he cannot be racist because he doesn't have a nation-level power structure to draw on. But if A is black and B is white and they happen to be in, say, Ghana, then you reverse yourself again and say person Acan be racist.
I have already conceded that, in this country, African Americans had it worse than any other race/ethnic group (see last paragraph in first post), and I also concede that white people are born with unearned power and privilege because of skin color. But again, just because African Americans have and, arguably, still suffer the most under that label doesn't mean they have the right to be completely exempt from the label themselves. No minority is exempt from the label.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, categorizing the exact same attitudes and actions using different terms based on where you happen to be and which race happens to be in power is ridiculous. Terms such as reverse racism and lateral racism are misnomers that are similarly ridiculous. Racial prejudice is a cause and/or result of racism, not a replacement for the term. If a person's actions and attitudes meet the dictionary definition of racism, then by definition that person is a racist.
Last edited by An Einnseanair; 05-23-2014 at 08:10 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
